¿Kitchen firm was ‘fraud risk’

CONSUMERS buying kitchens from a businessman accused of duping the public about his products faced a ‘high risk’ of becoming a ‘victim of fraud’, the head of Oldham Trading Standards told a court. Vance Miller, 44, is in the 13th week of a Manchester Crown Court fraud trial.

CONSUMERS buying kitchens from a businessman accused of duping the public about his products faced a ‘high risk’ of becoming a ‘victim of fraud’, the head of Oldham Trading Standards told a court.

Vance Miller, 44, is in the 13th week of a Manchester Crown Court fraud trial.

He is said to have fleeced customers by passing off block board as ‘solid’ and ‘real’ wood.

Tony Allen told the jury that he has headed Oldham council’s trading standards department since 2004, when Mr Miller’s business was the most complained about in the borough.

Mr Allen said by 2006 complaints had increased to the level that he thought the business was ‘engaged in a course of conduct detrimental to the interests of consumers’, with customers unsure about who they were dealing with and struggling to get refunds, products not matching orders, and pricing concerns.

He told the court that trading standards advised consumers on the council’s website ‘not to deal with this particular firm’ in the run up to a November 2006 raid.

High risk

This was because they were ran a ‘high risk’ of becoming a ‘victim of fraud’, he told the jury.

He added that this was an ‘objective view of the behaviour of the business’ based on complaints, a ‘stop now’ order from the Office of Fair Trading and ‘professional judgement’.

Mr Allen said that in July 2006 the decision was taken to launch the investigation with the backing of the borough’s Director of Environmental Services so that trading standards could get the evidence they needed to prove criminal activity.

Trading standards then began to meet frequently with police to develop an operational plan in the run-up to the raid.

Mr Allen said that his team considered the possibility the business might collapse as a result of the raid and contacted the Department of Work andPensions to warn them that Mr Miller’s employees might be needing their services.

However, he said the collapse of the business was not the intention of the raid.

Following the raid Mr Allen took the decision to prosecute the company and in November 2007 charges were brought.

By January the following year a new trading standards operation was launched, codenamed ‘Wang’, because of further concerns.

Guy Gozem QC, who represents Miller’s co-defendant Sadiya Hussein, put it to Mr Allen that trading standards had neglected its duty to liaise, educate and inform the business.

But Mr Allen said trading standards had tried to help them understand what their legal obligations were by forwarding complaints, calling the customer services manager, and by posting them a document about complying with the Business Names Act.

Mr Allen said that a working relationship requires full and frank cooperation from both sides, adding we weren’t getting that from Maple Mill.

incompetent

Mr Gozem suggested the business was doing its incompetent best and might have needed training.

After Mr Allen said there wasn’t an ‘appropriate relationship’ for that, Mr Gozem suggested that the relationship faltered after his arrival.